عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]چکیده [English]
In principle, the effectiveness of conciliation provisions depends on a set of factors other than the will of the parties, such as the will of the legislator and the role of the judge. According to Article 10 of the Civil Code, the parties have full freedom of agreement, but this freedom is not absolute, and the supposed legal plans will change the structure of the contract.
Now the question arises to what extent the legislator can play a role in the development and restriction of contractual freedom, given the economic, social, welfare and development needs by benefiting from special laws? And to what extent do law, custom and sharia prefer the public interest in preferring the necessities and pursuing public interests arising from the conflict of personal and public interest?
To explain this important point in this article, coercion in the contracting board is divided into two types of elementary and structural coercion, and these results obtained by induction in the opinions of courts, scientific sources and judicial procedures indicate that: First, the courts force the parties to deviate from the conciliation results to a minimum or maximum, and the public interest is emphasized in the issuance of judgments as well as in judicial procedures. Secondly, the cases mentioned in the paragraphs of Article 190 of the Civil Code imply the obligation of elements to the extent that in the dominant aspect, in all agreements, they are present as a necessity in the composition and are irrevocable, but on the contrary, due to the structure of contracts. Certain special parties are required to comply with the rules arising from the requirements and restrictions that have arisen in the context of coercion arising from the elements and will require them to make the desired changes to elements of the contract.